The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 361: THE EYE OF THE STORM

Episode Date: March 1, 2024

The Fight for Food Freedom Rages in Pennsylvania; Jefferey Jaxen Reports on the UK Government’s New Angle on Excess Deaths, and the vaccine injury pushback; In the Eye of the Climate Change Storm; ���Plandemic: The Musical’ Set to Premiere in Las Vegas in MarchGuests: Max Kane, Judith Curry, PhD, Mikki WillisBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Have you noticed that this show doesn't have any commercials? I'm not selling you diapers or vitamins or smoothies or gasoline. That's because I don't want any corporate sponsors telling me what I can investigate or what I can say. Instead, you are our sponsors. This is a production by our nonprofit, the Informed Consent Action Network. So if you want more investigations, if you want landmark legal wins, If you want hard-hitting news, if you want the truth, go to I Can Decide.org and donate now. All right, everyone, we ready?

Yeah. Let's do this. Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time for us all to step out onto the high wire. Happy leap year, everybody. This happens once every four years. February 29th is upon us.

what I guess signals that this is going to be a very interesting year. And indeed, it's proving to be so just in the very start here. We had an amazing week. It started with a hearing in Washington, D.C., hosted by Senator Ron Johnson, the roundtable discussion. What are federal health agencies in the COVID cartel hiding? This, if you've been following the highway or following Senator Ron Johnson, you know that he's had multiple hearings now.

this one, maybe the most star-studied of all of them, now specialists from all over the world, MPs from Parliament in Europe. And so it was just an astounding event that we live streamed on Monday here on the Highwire. And if you haven't sat and watched it, it is four hours, but this is one of those things. You should really take time. Maybe sit down with your kids that are a little bit older. This is an educational experience because what you got to witness was one of the ones. for the greatest cover-ups in world history, certainly in U.S. history, and it's still going

on. And it's a lot of what we're going to discuss today. So for flashback on this incredible event, hosted by Senator Ron Johnson, here it is. Take a look. Many have paid a heavy price for exercising their right to free speech to offer a different perspective, a perspective that was not allowed. I believe the growing corruption of science, scientific research, medical journals, federal health agencies, and as a result, the practice of medicine, has been exposed in the failed response to the pandemic. Every single institution dedicated to public truth seeking is under simultaneous attack. They are all in a state of collapse.

These are the worst of times for the media in this country. We live in the age of information warfare. The media is collaborating with government agencies and operatives to censor and shape. the information battlefield. The suppression of knowledge of the industry's reckless involvement in the Wuhan leak is an obvious cover-up. We have proof of that cover-up from the FOIA documents involving Fauci Collins, Jeremy Ferrarra, and others. It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative. The censorship we've endured,

the gaslighting, the silencing is unconstitutional. People say that there is nothing in the Constitution that accounts for a pandemic. Oh yes, there is. It's called the Ninth Amendment. And what does that Ninth Amendment say? The enumeration of the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by whom? The people. You need two things for a totalitarian system. On the one hand, you need an elite which excessively and relentlessly uses propaganda to keep control. over the population and then you need a part of the population 20 to 30% usually to go along in that propaganda and to buy fanatically and to into the narrative.

When the news is poisoned, so is democracy because we've stopped debating about what's right and instead we waste our time arguing about what's true. The betrayal of the public trust during the COVID pandemic could never have happened If many of the leaders we elected had not long ago abandoned rational thinking and succumbed to fear-based propaganda tactics, requiring us to give up the natural right to autonomy for an illusion of safety. In 2020, we published with colleagues of my department our fantastic experience with the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. We had the lowest mortality in all the Paris area and the lowest in France, just like Didier Raoul in Marseilles.

As a reward, also I was fired from my position of the head of the infectious disease department of my hospital position, which I occupied for 26 years. Today there have been 420 controlled trials studying hydroxychloroquine in COVID. With ivermectin, there have been 100 controlled trials with over 125,000 patients, all show large magnitude statistically significant benefits and all important outcomes. Yet, in this country, Ivermectin is considered an ineffective horsey-wormer and hydroxychloric in the drug of fringe, quack, right-wing, anti-vaxers. The drug safety and ingredient transparency are inherently nonpartisan,

but both the Trump and the Biden White House have called for transparency on COVID shots. The question is, why do we even need to ask for it? How can ethical physicians and pharmacists continue to administer and promote these injections without a full disclosure of what the ingredients are. Standard operating procedures for analysis of safety signals emergent from VERS when utilized reveal causal links between the COVID-19 injectable products and the adverse events investigated.

Standard operating procedures are not being followed by the owners of the data, namely CDC, HHS, and FDA, and this equates to hiding the millions of people reporting not only adverse events but injuries. Vaccine victims have been blamed, and betrayed over the years by doctors and scientists paid by federal agencies and industries and by some members of Congress with political operatives and corporate media to silence anyone who criticizes vaccine science policy and law so the truth can be hidden and public conversations

about vaccine risks and failures can be shut down today everybody knows somebody who was healthy got vaccinated and was never healthy again. If each of these potential injuries is rare, is it still rare when you add them all together? Take the Moderna vaccine, for example. In the standard three-shot regimen, based on this study, a person is increasing their risk of brain and spinal swelling by 378% with the first shot. They're also adding a 348% risk of myocarditis with that same first shot,

a 610% increase of myocarditis for the second shot, and another 201% increased risk of myrochitis for the third shot. What we all now know is that vaccine injury isn't happening. That's a lie. It is. And we all have a threshold, and we should figure out what that threshold is because millions of children are being injured all the way around the world. When I do the analysis, I see that for every one child that is saved from death, from COVID-19,

there are 30 deaths, 30 child deaths associated with the COVID-19. vaccine. So the risk to benefit ratio in terms of mortality is 30 to 1. We've been tracking excess deaths, disabilities and injuries across the globe. The total excess death since the rollout of the vaccine in the US, including 21, 22 and 23 is approximately 1.1 million. One hundred ninety four members of the World Health Organization agreed to move quickly on a treaty in the event the WHO decides to decrease to decrease. a pandemic. Experts believe the WHO could then in practice impose lockdowns and

force medical interventions and dictate medical protocols. This doctrine is totalitarian by design and we have to oppose it. It is a blank check to literally violate bodily autonomy of every human being and humiliate people on a global scale. have been a time where humanity joined forces together and doctors needed to come together. It's a shame that it didn't happen. This should not be political. Science is a story that evolves. Skepticism, challenging the current state of knowledge, having an open mind must be allowed if we have any hope of moving science forward. What I saw this pandemic was not science.

Most every other country is letting this happen. But where goes America, so goes the world. You have a unique role in setting the moral tone for Western democracies. When the founding fathers put freedom of speech first, he was not by chance. It was by design. We are once again watching the lights of freedom. They're going out here and all over the world. And it is up to us to determine if they will be lit again, ever.

The solution will revolve around each and every citizen, taking their own personal power back within their own home, becoming ethical, becoming moral. You can't farm lions, only lambs. Those who remain dedicated to the values of the West must fight this battle courageously, and we must win. For if we do not stem the tide, the result will be a dark age that differs from prior dark ages only in the power and sophistication of the coercive instruments wielded by those who will rule us. We must honestly and relentlessly pursue the truth. I am grateful to today's participants and to all those who are fiercely doing just that. Of course, there's clips from that incredible hearing all over the internet. Please do what you can to share, if not the entire event with your friends and family,

the clips that mattered to you. We've got to get the word out. Our government is taking away our rights. It has made just an incredible error. it is getting people killed and it's hiding it. That's what an entire event was about. It was shocking to hear how much detail in science we now have on our side on this conversation. Now, part of the conversations that have been in previous hearings with Senator Ron Johnson's

vaccine injury, we didn't really cover that. In this one, we said it's happening, but we didn't speak to those people that are going through these incredible long-term autoimmune issues. There are some of the most horrific changes in life and life-shunds. style that you've ever heard. So many of them are looking for answers. And for many, that answer is actually food. What if food was your medicine?

What it was the only thing you found that worked? What if getting raw milk or raw dairy somehow could change your gut biome, which had been destroyed because of the vaccine? And none of the pharmaceutical products were working. Doctors were throwing up their hands as you're riding in pain every day and throughout the night. And then all of a sudden, the only thing, the only place you can get that food gets shut down. That is what is at stake. That's what is in a conversation

today because there's a hearing going on with Amos Miller, who is a farmer, an Amish farmer up in Pennsylvania. We've talked about this before. Here's just a flashback of his story. Take a look at this. A Lancaster County farmer facing fines and could possibly go to jail. The government is arguing that the farm isn't adhering to federal regulatory requirements concerning food. You have this back and forth between the giant empire of the U.S. federal government and this tiny little farm in Burdenham, Pennsylvania. Amos Miller lives quietly, raising cows, chickens, sheep, and camels. He sells the unprocessed meat and dairy products to a private association. Prosecutors condemn his, quote, singular historic willingness to flout democratically enacted

federal food safety laws. They're coming after an independent, successful farmer who takes out the government middlemen and provides food directly to his community. My understanding is that the issue comes with the fact that you're not using their processing plants, that you are butchering your cattle yourself and delivering your product directly to the consumers and taking out that middleman. Yeah, I want to get USDA federal inspected. You have to either apply citric acid or bleach or possibly some steam, anything to prohibit the bacteria from growing.

And our membership base, they believe that. using those treatments is basically more harmful to them than a small amount of bacteria is. They are trying to make a statement that they're doing is to keep the food supply safe. Well, that's a good question. Is the food supply safe means the cancer, diabetes, heart problems have skyrocketed the past few years. So I don't think that has very much standing. I am in the cooler of Amos Miller here in bird in hand, Pennsylvania. All this food has been sitting in the cooler detained for about a month now raw milk it'll ferment over time this jar right here exploded a little bit from the pressure look at all this cheese here um kefers yogurt's

way is unsafe look at this yellow butter right here look at all this butter shells and shells of butter can't sell maple syrup anymore pickled beets uh canned fermented vegetables we've got the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, product under detention. We've got a whole other room back there. I mean, this is easy $100,000 dollars of food. This is really quite a shame. Well, there's a hearing going on right now as we speak and standing outside of that courtroom is raw food enthusiast and CEO of farmmatch.com. Max Kane joins me now. Max, how are you doing today? Awesome, Del. Nice to see you again. Good to see you. So give me a sense of what this case, what this trial is about today, please.

Sure, absolutely. So this is about the people being able to buy food direct from a farmer, totally unregulated. Amos Miller's been a farmer at it for 20 years now in Burden Hand, Pennsylvania. He does not want any regulation. He wants to be able to sell his raw milk and cheese and raw milk products without regulation. And this is the way the customers want to buy the food from him. They just don't want the government involved in their food. And the state disagrees with them. The state wants to be able to come in and regulate it, tell them how they should be preparing the food. And there's a huge court rally in hearing here at the Lancaster County Courthouse about this today.

So, you know, part of this, let me understand this. Amos's food is not going into any sort of like grocery store where you, it's like mixed in with a bunch of other foods. You won't know of someone. I mean, it's about tracking if someone gets sick, right? But these people are in a direct sort of membership, ownership deal, if you will, private membership with Amos saying, I want to buy directly from you. That's what we're talking about here. Yeah, absolutely. So we're talking about a direct one-on-one consenting adults.

I can come and check out how my food is raised. It's okay with me, almost as if the customer is the inspector. And that's really what the heart of this case is. And even farther, this case is really about body autonomy, informed consent, being able to choose what goes in your body. And the customers, some have, are from around the country. Many people have traveled from all over the country. Today we have Sally Fallon Morel.

She's going to be giving expert testimony today as an expert witness. We have some of the other witnesses and customers that are actually buying this food for medical reasons and health reasons, where when they buy food from the food from the expert witness, the commercial grocery store and the industrial food system, they get sick and they eat, they need to eat the food the way that Amos prepares it. So that's a lot about what this is about here today and speaks to the heart of why we're all here. I mean, Max, just because it's been a little while since we talked to you, but just very quickly,

for people that don't understand why you would want raw milk, like the pasteurization kills all of the bacteria in the milk. It kills all the bacteria in the cheese and these products. people like you that are healing themselves from Crohn's, you actually want all of that bacteria. Is that right? You're going out of your way to find these natural bacteria. Yeah, absolutely. We want the bacteria in the milk. We want the full bacteria that's normally supposed to be there in the milk. This is the way the milk was created. It helps people with different digestive problems and lactose intolerant and people who bodies cannot self-produce the

enzymes that's needed to digest the milk. All right, you know what? I know that you've got someone standing by that sort of wants to tell their story. Why don't we talk to them? Who we're about to meet with here, Max? This is Noemi. Noemi, come out over here. This is one of Amos's customers. She traveled up from all the way from Flores, sunny, from sunny Florida up to cold Pennsylvania, and she's going to be testifying in front of the judge and probably about in the next hour. And this is the health... Uh-oh. All right. There we go.

All right. Go ahead, Noemie. Tell us. why you get food from Amos Miller. Well, I was diagnosed with a chronic gastrointestinal disease in 2010. And three years ago, I came across Amos Miller's food products, and I started trying them. It allowed me to come off my medication and remain in remission for two years and my body to heal from all those medicines. My disease is active. I am not healed because I do have the disease, but it did allow me to be that period

in remission. As of February 12, I'm back on medication. I haven't been able to get his products. So for me, it's a matter of living in a healthier way and with the freedom of having to have a live without being on FDA-approved medication. So you're saying that when you get the food from AMIS, you don't have to take the medication,

but when you buy a store-bought food, that's when you have to be on these pharmaceutical drugs. Is that right? Exactly, exactly. When I do commercial products, I have to be on medication. Wow. I have to be on pharmaceuticals.

There's no way my body can process it. Well, that about sums it up, Della. I mean, these people are very... All right. Well, Max, I want to thank you. We're in and out with the mic. Thank you for being there. We understand what's taking place.

And just very quickly, Max, here's my issue. This really seems like a solution looking for a problem. And when we think about it, this is a directed consumer. It's going straight to the consumer. As you said, they get to inspect this food themselves. And if the whole idea is what it sounds like the USDA is saying is, well, what if there's a listeria outbreak, how are we going to track it back to your farm? Well, the truth is, is it's going to be really easy that people buying from me know who they got it from. You're not, if they're in the hospital, you'd be able to ask them what happened?

Well, I've got food from that farm. They didn't go to a store. They didn't not have contact. They didn't know who the third party in the, you know, in between person was. There was no third party. So this entire argument seems bogus to me. Hit that mic one more time and let me just get a final statement from you. Yeah, yeah, absolutely dull.

That's what this is about. I mean, if we want to be able to track our food, it's so much easier to track if you're buying Farm Direct. The whole idea that we need to have 20 middlemen and not know where our food came from and buy a jug of milk in the store that probably... All right. We lost here, but I got you. Thank you very much, Max, for joining us.

Folks, he's got a great website, farmmatch.com. This website allows you to connect with any organic farmers near you that are part of this direct-to-consumer sales that's going on so that you can get it straight from the farmer. You can go inspect that farm. See how those cows are being raised. See how your meat is being slaughtered if you like. I mean, this is really just a different, I mean, shouldn't we be allowed to live our lives the way, we want. Do we really need the government inserting itself between transactions between one person and another person? In this case, me and a farm, this is what's at stake here. And it's just part of

the sort of crushing takeover of government regulations that really, by the way, at the heart of this is the industry loves this, right? The drug companies want you to have to do $100 million randomized controlled trials to prove that your vitamin C is safe. And if you can't, you take it off the market. Farma, big ag, they love these regulations because it takes all of the small farmers out of the way. They can't adhere to all these rules. They don't need to. Those rules are designed when, as Max said, you have 25 middlemen between you and some farm and truckers and no one knows where it came from except some QR code. You don't need that when you're involved in, you know, farm to table purchasing of your food. So we're going to watch this very closely. This is something that I can is

looking at. We're looking at helping on cases like this. I got a big show coming up. You know, we've got Mickey Willis is coming along. And then Judith Curry. I'm going to talk about climate change with someone that once said that we're seeing all these hurricanes because of climate change. Where is she at now? You're going to have to find out. But first, it's time for the Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey. Welcome. I love it. When you get to come to set, we get to do this in person. So how's life treating you? Doing well. Well, I got some information for you. Okay. And there's some things that we've been reporting on for the last couple years that are changing drastically right now. And people out there may not have heard of the word excess deaths

if they've been watching the legacy media. But independent journalists, independent shows like ours and others have been sounding the alarm on this. Excess deaths over normal during the COVID pandemic. Right. And we were told you get this shot and it's going to stop this. The pandemic. will be over. It didn't. It just made these excess deaths in so many countries around the world go even further. So we have people in our government in UK Parliament like Andrew Bridgen. He's been bringing up these ideas in the UK Parliament. He actually had a meeting in the Parliament last month in January trying to talk about this on the parliamentary floor. And so when we talk about excess deaths, let's really put some numbers on this. So we go to Mortality Watch. And you can look at this

graph here. And we see Mortality Watch is kind of an aggregator of all of the sources. and they're one of the largest, most detailed on the web. And you can see here, the United States, you look across and you see these highlighted in yellow, starting at 2020, going all the way at 2023, and there's an average of 15.7% excess deaths. That's over. So they took what was going on before the pandemic. They had an average, and then they took what was going on during the pandemic, and you see this average is way above.

That's a flashing red signal. You had Edward Dowd at the Congressional Hearing talking about this. But then you have England and Wales, 10.4%. That's gigantic. And so let's... I mean, just as Edward Dowd said, 10% is like, you know, a multiple-sul-sigma event, like a once-in-a-200-year hurricane, will see a rise of a 10% death rate. Right. So these are massive, massive numbers. Very, very rare.

Yeah. And again, we were told the shot was going to stop this. They're going up in two. So we go to this next graph here, our world data, this is the U.K. It's 2023 from the entire year of 2020. You see the United Kingdom up there. That's about 36, a little over 36,000 based on the projected number of death from the same period in previous years. So what people are asking these questions, what's going on?

The governments are silent. The UK government is silent. So the Office for National Statistics, this is the place that counts these and that tracks excess deaths and should be there. If there's a signal, they should say, hey, we have a signal here. there's a problem. We're going to, they've been silent except till now. Take a listen. All right. During and since the coronavirus pandemic, we've generally seen more people die than we'd expect. We call these deaths above average excess deaths.

Different organizations have used different ways to calculate this, each with merit and particular uses, for example, for planning health interventions and identifying emerging threats. In the spirit of continuous improvement, we've been working with independent experts and those across government and the devolved nations to develop a common UK-wide approach. Using our new approach, today's release estimates 11,000 excess deaths in 2023. While this is lower than our previous estimate, our new method accounts for the growth and ageing of the population. These are key factors in understanding how many deaths we'd expect to see and whether the number of deaths is below or above this estimate. Looking more closely at the last months of 2023, there were actually negative excess deaths,

meaning fewer deaths than average being registered. This is literally the definition of cooking the books. Right. I mean, they're literally telling the entire nation we have seen a rise, and so we decided to get together and cook the books. Right. We have negative deaths in the last part. Yeah. Based on our model.

And what's amazing about this is modeling is usually use when you don't. don't know where you're going, right? We've got to try and guess where we're at. They're using models to replace the actual numbers they have. Exactly. And so 36,000 plus goes to 11,000. No problem anymore. And so we go to the Office for National Statistics,

actual website, and it says here on there, how are they counting these now? It says, trends in population size, aging, and mortality rates are accounted for by the new method for estimating the expected number of deaths using the calculation for excess mortality, the difference between the actual and expected number of deaths.

This is not the case for the current method, which use a simple five-year average to estimate the number of expected deaths. So the old method used just a simple method. You look at what happened before the pandemic and then compare it. No, we're not going to do that anymore. We're throwing Occam's razor out the door, which is the simplest answer is usually the one that's right. We're going to try and make this as complicated as we absolutely can. Right. How complicated you ask?

Let's go to that same paper. They actually show their algorithm that they use, their mathematical model. So this is actually, when they get the number of deaths, they run it through this model first. And they run it through for age and sex and geography. But then for the expectations, what's expected, they take a longer one. They run it through this model, this statistical model. So you have these two things. And so the health advisory recovery team, the heart team, they put out an article just to summarize this,

because it starts to get in the weeds a little bit. But there are going to. You think? I mean, like there's absolutely no one on this planet. you know, that's not an astrophysicist who can figure out that math. Exactly, exactly. So what they titled their article, too many deaths are to be expected. It's kind of laughable if wasn't so serious. But it says any changes due to a problem with health gets baked into their next prediction of deaths.

This is for their new method. Right. If deaths have been high, then they say we should expect them to be high. They have created a model that would call a hockey stick rise in deaths, something which should be almost entirely expected. I mean, the level of insanity here when you think that these are supposed to be scientists. Because, sure, I mean, I guess what they're saying, COVID was here. Or in this case, we gave you a vaccine that we just admitted last week causes myocarditis

and causes antifalaxis and all these other things. And they'd like to say it's small, but nobody was actually told it was causing that. So what happens now that they know? But either way, they're seeing this rise and say, well, that rise is going to be here. So we're just going to bake it into this cake. So how do we know if we've come off it? I mean, they're literally whitewashing all the science you need to track human health. Exactly.

Like, why would you need to do this? And the only reason, the only reason they're doing this is for us so that we aren't panicked about what we're seeing. Because we can make sense of it right now. Let's make it so confusing that you just take yourself out of the game and we're going to just try and see if we can track what's going on without you. I mean, end, you have to imagine. This is clearly now science, the worst type of science, which is going for an end result. It is clear that the goal was to reduce this number, not to, like, get it more vivid, not to, you know, let the chips fall where they may. So you have to imagine when they built this model, you know, and we have computers that can do this now.

We've all done it on our own computers. Let me add this. Oh, no, the number goes up. No, don't have that, you know, statistic. How about this one? Oh, yeah, it went down if we do that. How about that one? Down.

Oh, no, no, take that one out. Let's build it out of a model of all the things that bring this number down so we can get to the result that makes us happy and us, it's a way. to say nothing to see here, world. They start with an ends and they create a mathematical means to get to that ends. This is how it is. This is the death of science. This is the death of humanity. This is the most dangerous type of science and world leadership now that we have ever seen.

And we knew this was going to happen. 2022, we were reporting on this. You said this. If anybody wasn't watching then, this is what Dell said. People say, Dell, they're going to try and hide it. Hide what? you might be able to hide COVID deaths. You might be able to sort of manipulate the COVID deaths

and take people that are having heart attacks and put them in the COVID category. You might be able to hide the actual, you know, COVID vaccine rates and who was truly vaccinated. Were they fully vaccinated? Were they boosted? Did they only have one shot? Was there only 14 days after the second shot?

They're manipulating all of that. But one thing you cannot manipulate is the all-cause mortality, just meaning if there's a rise in just death across the board in every nation, And that is going to be really hard to hide. I didn't know that they had a mathematical formulation plan to try and deal with that. But it is the case.

And this is what I keep thinking about. As I, you know, when we're at the Ron Johnson hearings, the Washington Post comes up in New York Times. They still like to like throw this idea of misinformation. I'm like, what did you report on that you're proud of? Like, tell me what part of what you reported on actually stuck. You said the vaccine would stop transmission. I said it wouldn't.

It does not. You said, you know, it would end the pandemic. it's now endemic. You were wrong. I was right. I said there appeared to be a Wuhan lab leak. You said, no, there wasn't. I was right. You were wrong. You want to tell me how you're standing here with any kind of moral authority saying that you can look down on the work that we're doing. I'll put all of my videos against everything that's ever been written by the New York Times of Washington Post. And here's what's amazing. When you look at that, how was it? We predicted. That was when the vaccine is still rolling out. We didn't know. I literally put it on the line.

So did you in the work that we did and said, we are predict. a rise in all cause excess mortality that will be caused by this vaccine that even once the virus is gone or wherever it's at, you will see a rise in excess mortality. If it is there, we were right. The fact that we predicted that means that this should be a five-alarm alert across the world, and it's got to be this is the problem. The anti-vaxers got it right. We got it right. We proved to the world we were right. And now they are stuck cooking the books.

I mean, we got to get them out of there. We've got to get these government officials out of there immediately. Looking at just publicly available data, the same data they had and more, because we know they have data that public has not seen. So let's talk about this shot because something has happened that I believe will change the conversation around the vaccine reporting perhaps forever, hopefully forever. So let's look at what happened in the UK here. Just recently this headline came out. Now, the MHRA is their medicines regulator. It's like our FDA.

So this is the headline here. Medicine's regulator failed to flag COVID vaccine side effects and must be investigated, says MPs. And it says some 25, those are members of parliament, across five parties have written to the Health Select Committee asking for an urgent investigation. In reply, Steve Bryan, the Health Committee chairman, has said an inquiry into patient safety is very likely. In a letter to Mr. Brian, the APPG said that there was reason to believe that the MHRA had been aware of post-vaccination, heart and clotting issues as early. is February 2021, but did not highlight the problems for several months. When I saw that, I went, wait a minute, that sounds familiar because the CDC did the same thing. So this is the headline when the CDC did it. This is CDC drafted alert for myocarditis, a public alert.

Imagine that. They're going to try that. And COVID-19 vaccines, but never sent it. So you have this shot that has been rolled out. You have these medicine agencies, CDC, MHRA, that knew of a problem but didn't alert the public and at the same time you have this medical industrial complex that have been built up around people trying to tell their stories saying look this thing is hurting me on Twitter on social media and they're saying nope misinformation you're gone but so much so they wrote a document saying it like

think about this a boardroom of people said it's bad enough we should probably warn somebody okay draft that up let's take a look at it they all took a look at the draft and somehow like some crazy movie of some, you know, I mean, I was just watching a Wall Street, you know, movie where they're just corrupt and going to just ruin the world. They make the decision, you know what, better to just not warn anybody. Let's hold it back. That's criminal. That is criminal, especially when you had not done proper safety trials. You had no idea what the safety profile was this, and you know that if our post-marketing surveillance systems are going to work, then doctors need to know what they're supposed to be looking for. And you took away that alert to those doctors that kept saying to

everybody, don't worry, vaccines perfectly safe, but I have the swollen heart. Yeah, it's been proven. I mean, I would have heard from the CDC. They would have sent me a memo if it was actually causing that. Right. That memo exists. It was just never sent. It exists somewhere, but not publicly. Wow. And so at the same time, you have people like the previous prime minister of the UK, Boris Johnson going out. Is he alerting people? Not really. This is what he was talking about. in 2022. Boris Johnson hits out at anti-vaxxers spouting mumbo-jumbo on social media. Well, those days are over. Boris Johnson's is gone. And here is the new version of vaccine reporting. This is Sky News, Australia. And Rishi Sunnick, the new prime minister of the UK, or the current one, I should say, has just

received an earful. Take a listen. All right. Well, it's Judgment Day in the UK. Here's Rishi Sunak, just two weeks ago on the floor of the House of Lords, assuring people of these one fact that they still so desperately want us to believe. Let me be unequivocal from this dispatch box that COVID vaccines are safe. Except that they're not, are they, Prime Minister? And he was forced to admit this when face to face with one of tens of thousands of vaccine, individuals in the UK. Hi Rushby Shunak.

I've got so much to say, but such little time. My name is John Watt and I'm one of the COVID vaccine injured in this country. I want you to look into my eyes Rishishanak and I want you to look at the pain, the trauma and the regret I have in my eyes. We have been left with no help at all. Not only am I in here that is vaccine injured. There's another man over there whose life been ruined by that COVID-19. by that COVID-19 vaccine.

I know people who have lost legs, amputations. I know people with heart conditions like myself, Rishishanak. Why have I had to set up a support group in Scotland to look after the people that have been affected by that COVID-19 vaccine?

Why are the people who are in charge who told us all to do the right thing, have left us all tear up and left me and the thousands and the tens of thousands in this country to rot. Richie Suna, look at me in the eye.

When are you going to start to do the right thing? The vaccine damage payment scheme is not fit for purpose. In Scotland right now, according to the yellow card system, there are over 30,000 people who have had an adverse reaction to that vaccine. Okay. John, thank you very much indeed for your question. It's for you to start doing the right thing, Mr. Wisch is right. Wow.

All right. Two big things just happened there besides that emotion. That was the first time a vaccine injured person has confronted the leader of their country on live TV, no less, to tell them what has been going on. And secondly, you have Sky News covering it in a balanced way and not just Sky News. I looked across the headlines. I was waiting for crazy anti-vaxxer goes off on Prime Minister, dangerous anti-nothing. Nothing. Here's the daily mail. This is the headline. Moment Rishi Sunnick is confront. over COVID vaccine as man who suffered drastic side effects tells him to look into his eyes and see his pain and fire exchange. Here's the express, Rishi Sunnick confronted by furious COVID vaccine campaigner. Not a word about anti-vaxers in there. This is a monumental moment for anybody that has been following how the media has reported on these things. I'm very hopeful at this point, but here's Rishi Sunnick's reply. He did get to reply. So when he was done looking like he was shaking in his boots, this is what he mustered up.

So there is a vaccine compensation scheme that's in place, as you alluded to in the NHS. Obviously, everyone individually will work through their cases. It's difficult for me to comment on anyone's individual case. I'm sure you'll appreciate that. I'm very happy to go and look at the cases and I'm sure you'll get them to the team here. I'm very saddened and shocked to hear that you've been silenced by anybody. That is surprising to me. So please do get your details to Stephen and the team.

And I will happily take that away. Of course, you should be able to speak about your experience, what's happened to you. And as I said, we have a compensation scheme in place for that, and I'll make sure that we're working through that. You flat out liar, you said two weeks ago, unequivocally, your own word, unequivocally safe. Then why is there 30,000 people in that gentleman's support group,

Prime Minister? And why are you admitting outright, just two weeks later to him? Oh, there is a vaccine injury compensation scheme, much like we have here in Australia. Why are you still saying it's safe? It says a lot regarding why there's not one single pandemic premier left here in Australia. And indeed, the man who was Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, during that time, has also announced his resignation.

Do they know a judgment day is coming here in Australia as well? Wow. I'm just that reporting is so exciting. I mean, you look at Sky News, that's, you know, the competitor to BBC. I mean, this isn't just some fringe network now. Once it's hit, I mean, to me, this is a tipping point. It's a tipping point. Clearly, the problem is so big that they're left with the worst type of circumstances,

which is to cook the books. Like they've got to change, literally erase the science that is proving they got this wrong. In full view of the public now. Yeah. Mainstream legacy media is reporting on this. So according to Rishi Sunnick, vaccines are safe. We have a payment scheme for people that get injured. It's just like the U.S. It's great. Well, during the same time that was happening, you have Peter Marks. He's the head

of the Center for Biologics at the FDA. So he's the guy that's in charge of this vaccine rollout and giving it the okay. He was in front of Congress. This is what he had to say. Take a listen. We couldn't speed up time. So we, in order to get the vaccines to people in need when thousands of people were dying. We actually allowed the safety to be authorized with just two months of median fall up rather than the normal six to 12. But we were confident that that would capture adverse events. So we had good safety data. Two months of safety data. Well, we were confident, though, because it's just two months. But we have a great adverse reporting system. It was this big glove. It was going to catch it. And we had it ready. So someone asked,

Well, tell me about that when it happened. What happened when it rolled out? And this is what you had to say. All right. As of February 24, VAERS reports for COVID-19 vaccines total significantly higher than all other vaccines combined since 1990, as reported. This is a surprising figure. Dr. Marks was the government prepared for such an avalanche of reports to VAERS,

and it kind of goes with what we just mentioned. The point is extremely well taken. We tried to be prepared for that, but the avalanche of reports was tremendous. And it, again, required retasking people on the fly to, I think for, and I let my CDC colleagues speak to this. We had to usually staff up and had many meetings working to increase our ability to go through these reports. There's so much that is wrong with this statement right here. You know, we made an assumption based on two months of data that this thing was safe. Clearly there was an avalanche we were not prepared for.

So we were wrong. As scientists at the CDC, FDA, we got it dead wrong. We are undermanned. So now we got to go through that data because there's tens of thousands. You pointed out that there's more than every other vaccine injury combined since the beginning of the virus system in, what, two or three decades. Right, right. I mean, and so when we look at this various, folks, look at what we're talking about. 37,100 reports of death from the COVID vaccine, 214,000 hospitalizations, 153,000 urgent care,

Bell's palsy is at 17,664, and of Blacks is at 10,754. And here's what he doesn't say in that statement. And once we started looking through these, this is what we were able to discover and tell the public. We never heard anything. Nothing. They've said, oh, I guess we're all assuming that none of those 30,000 deaths had anything to do with the COVID vaccine. That's what they keep saying on the news. None of it's linked.

Really? Then you better have a report for us all in the world to look at because you promise you'd be transparent. We see a rise like we've never seen before, even you've never seen it before, so much so that you're understaffed. And I want to point out this study that came out just last week once again because I think it just buttons this all up. When we look at the headlines last week, largest COVID vaccine study ever, find shots. are linked to a small increased risk of neurological blood and heart disorders, but they are still extremely rare. I talked about this, rare being six times the amount of myocarditis compared to those that didn't get the shot. That is, you know, myocarditis is rare. If you're increasing the risk

by six times, here's what should be said to everyone on every news station. If you have just suffered myocarditis, we have reason to believe that that was definitely caused by the vaccine. You should go in and report it immediately, go to your doctor. Can you imagine if they said that? Can you imagine if on CNN and Fox and MSNBC and all of these, Peter Marks said, we may have made a mistake. As it turns out, the anti-vaxers were right. This is causally linked to myocarditis.

And so any doctor that told you couldn't have possibly been the vaccine, now we must assume that it was because it's six times more popular to have. after a vaccine, then not at all, which means that it's most likely caused by the vaccine. Please get back to your doctor, have them submitted to the CDC, and now we've got to start paying your medical bills because we F this up. 99 million people in that study that you're quoting from, 99 million people. This isn't a study where they took, you know, 20 grad students from college that had it mandate on them at the University of Virginia.

This is 99 million people across several countries in the world. This is what they should be talking about. So Peter Mark says, you know, in a laughing manner, I don't know why he was laughing there, but in a laughing manner, we staffed up and we have the staff now. We're all good. How's that staff working for you? Well, check out this headline here. This is the Epox Times.

US vaccine injury compensation program has a 10-year backlog of claims. I thought they staffed up. Here it says, according to testimony given during February 15th hearing of the select subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic, there's a backlog of about 10,800 claims with only 35 employees processing claims at a rate of 2.7 cases. per employee per month, it will take about 10 years to process the remaining claims. But people may not still know, and I can guarantee these doctors and nurses giving these shots, probably still don't know either, is it does not go into the normal vaccine court.

If someone gets injured or reports an injury, someone out there gets this shot, they have myocarditis, the doctor says that might be from the vaccine. I read this study of 99 million people that said you might get this. They do not go to what the regular vaccine injury courts that all the other vaccines go to. Which is a crappy court system begin with anyway, but it's better than this. I'm sure you're about to tell me. Absolutely. It's the countermeasures compensation program.

CICP, this is under HRSA. And CICP, you have a one-year statute of limitations, not from your diagnosis, from when you got the shot. So remember, the CDC is dragging their feet to alert that they even alert the public that this myocarditis might be from there. So the doctors and nurses did not have this knowledge. No, the doctors and nurses are going one step further. They are telling you no way the vaccine causes. So you have 360 days from the moment you got the vaccine to realize that your doctor is a dipshit and doesn't know what he's talking about to get yourself in this court system or you have no chance at all. You're going to have to override your belief and trust in your doctor that the CDC is undermined by lying to them and get in this court system.

Who's going to do that? How many people that believe in this product will within 360 days realize their doctors actually lying to them because they don't know anything? I'm presenting information to you here in hopes that people out there in whatever positions they're in of power or citizen journalists or whatever change this because this data is not good. So we look at this CICP because they produce their numbers every month. And may I remind you, it's the middle of every month they produce their numbers of compensated people. They're not doing it for February. We're almost in March and they have not produced them yet. So I don't know why they haven't done that.

There's been no explanation. So all we have is numbers up to January 1st. And this is what it is. 12,854 total COVID claims. And how many claims have been compensated? 11. 11. This is the compensation.

11. And so let's look at the cut. These are the people that have been compensated. Myocarditis. You swell your heart and you get $1,000. Here you go. Good luck with that. The compensation, merely reimbursements for medical expenses that aren't covered.

you add all of that up, you get a little over $41,000 that the government has paid out to people injured from this vaccine for just myocarditis. This is what we're looking at. Let's just do the math for a second because Richie's soon, Nick is saying we have a system just as robust to pay you. I don't know why you feel like you're not being handled. I'm going to look into that. Well, because we're mirroring America that is so far over the last two years of this program, let's say, compensated 11 out of 12,000, right? So that means like, you know, one every 2,000th per year, right? That's how much they're getting through.

So if we're to understand this correctly, it will take 2,000 years to pay off the last person on this list. So basically, if a vaccine injured Jesus, he's in the queue, and in about another maybe 50 to 100 years, he may get his day in court. Right. What doctor, what lawyer looking at this would go, go ahead and file that. If you're a doctor, you're going to say that system's broken. The best you can do is find an alternative doctor to try to heal yourself because you're never getting compensation there. And if you do, it's going to be a couple Gs. And God forbid that raw dairy ends up being your answer because we're shutting down every farm that's providing that to you too.

While we tell doctors, there is nothing to see here, so they're not working on a cure for you because they don't even believe it exists. This will change and we will report on it. I guarantee that. This is no longer standing here. It's amazing. Wow. Incredible. Incredible reporting, Jeffrey.

really, really upsetting stuff when you look at it. And this is the thing. Like when we can sit here and talk about it, what are the people, what are we going to do? Right. We are still free people. We have elected these buffoons. We have put these liars in office. They are now doing it right in front of us.

Right. The emperor literally has no clothes. They're doing pole dances stark naked in front of us now. Are we going to continue to put up with this? All we can do is call it out in those people in positions of power. whistleblowers if you're out there it's time anybody within the FDA the CDC it's time to come forward you have in you have droves of independent media that will get your story out and you have a lot of legal teams that can protect you so I'm asking anybody out there that can have information on this

that can change us yeah time to come we're going to make sure that they go down in history they won't be forgotten the lie and the crime that took place here okay well part of the work that we do here we don't just report on things like this which could be really depressing if that's all you got, but we actually have a legal team that is out there fighting for you. When you are donating to the high wire, you're making it possible to make a difference on these issues. So we have a legal update from our own Aaron Siri, the lead attorney of our legal team. Take a look at this. In December of 2023, news came out that there were some problems at the Moderna facility that manufactured the COVID-19 vaccine. So we submitted a FOIA request on behalf of ICANTA to the FDA to

understand what exactly did the FDA find. The FDA, it appears, conducted an inspection in September of 23. So that's a long time after the modern of COVID vaccine was first seized by the American public in December of 2020. So we're talking years later. And in that inspection, here's what the FDA found. Quote, expired materials were found utilized beyond their expiration date and restricted materials reutilize an MRNA drug substance production." They also found, quote, equipment and facilities are not designed to minimize potential for contamination. And it went on to find a whole host of other issues.

I think that this really brings home and highlights why we can never leave the safety of any product solely in the hands of the government, and especially not in the hands of the very agency that licensed the product and authorized it. Remember, it was the FDA that's sure to everybody for years. It's safe and effective. Are they really going to turn around now and say, oops, there's an issue we've made a mistake? Unlike.

And so it is exactly why we are also suing in a separate suit to lift the immunity under the PEP Act so that issues like this can hopefully be asserted in a judicial form that has appropriate safeguards and procedures. If we are prevailing that suit, it means that the PEP Act immunity would go away, and hence, if Congress acts, it could move COVID vaccine injuries to the vaccine injury compensation program, or if Congress doesn't act, it means you could sue the manufacturers of the COVID-19 vaccines directly.

I want you to just think for a moment, just the first hour of this show, what we've just talked about. You have world-renowned scientists coming into Washington, D.C., only one senator that's really even telling this story. There's no other senators. They're a part of the rest of them are owned by pharma. They're a part of a cover-up. They don't care. They don't think that you're ever going to know that there are people injured, even though you know those people now.

They're everywhere. Everyone, in fact, we remember the headline that basically said 50% of people in America now believe that they know someone that has probably been killed or injured by the COVID vaccine. That's how bad this is. You have Peter Marks, the head of your FDA, that is lying to you, is not looking into the only surveillance system we have. didn't have enough people. You have a government that sat there knowing that this is going to have a side effect and then stopped warning you about it and told you it was perfectly safe and marched you off the cliff like Lemmings. If this type of stuff and then all of those that were injured are now lined up in a court system that, and imagine, and you're like, well, it's only 12,000 people are injured. You think that's the case?

What do you think every lawyer that gets called now says when they go and look at the same sheet we just showed you? I've been injured by the COVID vaccine. I'd like to be in the system that is going to take care of my injuries because I can't afford it. I've lost my house. I'm flat broke now. I can't work. I am in so much pain. My heart is swollen.

Whatever the case may be, that lawyer goes and looks and says, well, actually, they're paying out about one, two thousandth per year. Meaning if you, if I take this case for you, our court date will be 2,000 years from now. Do you think any lawyer is taking those cases? Do you think anybody else is going to be added to that list? Okay? This is a disaster. It's a cover-up. It's a lie and it's destroying lives.

And these morons are still telling you it's rare, still telling you to go out and get it, even though they have absolutely no evidence that that is the case anymore. If they went on the news, they know for a fact. You know how many people would line up and say, my God, you mean the myocarditis I have is actually caused by this back? Can you imagine it's probably going to be a 200,000 year list if that ends up in court? If that isn't pissing you off, if that doesn't make you say, how are we going to survive this? If we are being led by people that are this corrupt, what are we going to do?

And what can I do about it? I'm sure you're sitting there saying, what can I do about it? Tell, I'm sitting in my couch. I'm not the one electing people to be head of the FDA. Well, we're the ones that are outing all this stuff. We're suing them. We're bringing lawsuits like the one Aaron just said. We're going to destroy the CICP.

We're going to bring this thing crashing down. No one should wait a thousand years to be compensated for an injury that was done on purpose, knowingly, without warning them. And once we bring them down, we're going to put Peter Marks on the stand and Tony Fauci. We are going to bring these people to justice. But if you don't help us right now, it's going to take us 2,000 years. we don't have that time. If you're sitting there and watching this and you've never donated to the high wire,

will you please consider for a moment that your money right now is going to the most important legal cases in the history of mankind. We can only bring this entire lie crashing down with your help. So please, make this the day that you say,

I am mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore, and though I would love to just pop someone in the nose, I'm going to do the second best thing. And I'm going to donate, I don't know, $24 a month to I can so that they can go pop these people in the nose for me. Go to the top of the page. Donate to I can. Decide what amount you can for. We really love the recurring donors. But of course, if you want to give a large donation, that's great too. But this recurring donation helps us understand how many cases we can take on so that we don't get left hanging out there.

And I'll be honest. We're going to be really honest right now. I just spoke to Aaron Siri last week, and he said, I might have been a little overzealous, Del. We've taken on a few cases, and we are really now running thin. And I said, well, look, I'll tell the audience that, I'm not lying. We can back off. We can take our nonprofit, the most successful nonprofit, with the most successful law team that has ever exposed corruption on this level inside of Washington. inside of our government, and we can back off.

I mean, we're smart. You know, we know how to spend our money wisely. Or you can decide, I don't want you to stop, Del. I don't want Aaron to stop. We need you to continue. You get to make that decision today. I'll let you know how we did on Monday. Make this the day you help us make a difference.

Type 72022 into your phone. Type in the word donate, and we'll make it really easy for you. Well, there is so many levels of corruption now. It's getting to the point where I question all of the science I grew up reading. How much of it was real? How much of it was like really like got through the scientific method, the gauntlet of challenge, right? A hypothesis should be challenged by all those that say, hey, hold on a second.

I think you got this wrong and here's why. journals that go back and forth and you get to see the argument between scientists. As we've shown you, that doesn't happen anymore. Now the paper just gets retracted. Doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you just disagree with the hypothesis. Now it needs to be taken down. There's so many parts of this science that is starting to affect us.

And one of them is climate change. What is the science behind climate change? We're told it's irrefutable, ad nauseum, every single. day sounds like this. The federal government is full speed ahead to confront the climate change emergency. Climate change is literally an existential threat to our nation and to the world. The UN's latest most in-depth scientific report on climate change warns the dangers are immediate and growing more acute. Many things trigger migraines, but Dr. Cohen says often patients blame the weather and extreme conditions fueled by

climate change are now an increasing concern. Passengers were thrown out of their seats after the airplane encountered severe turbulence. Spokesperson for a flight attendants union said this. Severe weather increases chances of turbulence and due to climate change, these kinds of incidents will only continue to grow. Climate change, specifically higher temperatures, is making our children more inactive and more obese. Dr. Santosh Pandapati is also helping his pregnant patients deal with climate-related crisis. For the past two decades, Dr. Pandipati has studied and lectured on the evidence

that proves climate change can impact pregnancy. When you look at mothers who have been pregnant and then subjected to natural disaster, there is significant mental health harms, anxiety, depression, PTSD. There are so many different things that can dampen your sex drive. You're tired, you have a headache,

the kids are bugging you. And now here's another one to add to the list, global warming. That's right, climate change can kill your mojo. Climate change is having a disproportionate effect on the physical and mental health of black communities. Black Americans are more likely than white Americans to live in areas and housing that increase their susceptibility to climate-related health issues. This morning, a new study suggests one reason why sluggers may be hitting it out of the park a little bit more often, climate change. When temperatures rise, the air gets less

dense, meaning that there is less air resistance for balls flying through the air. Even climate activist Greta Thunberg was arrested yesterday while protesting at an oil facility in Sweden. Two young activists throwing soup onto one of the world's most famous paintings, Bango's Sunflowers. Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people? Climate activists glued their hands to sports cars to protest the automotive industry. I'm also going to bring out 96 other scientists. Climate skeptic, please make a case against climate change. Well, I just don't think all the science is in yet.

So, okay, and what is the overwhelming view of the entire scientific community? Okay, okay, any response to that? I can't hear you over the way to... Amongst the scientists that have been a part of this conversation on climate change is Judith Curry. Many years ago in 2005, she published an article that got a lot of publicity. Changes in tropical cyclone number duration intensity in a warming environment. It went on, got picked up by many different circulating the story. It's a new era of hurricanes.

Experts string of intense storms as part of normal cycle. And then Peter Webster and Judith Curry documented a 60% global jump in major hurricanes. As this story went along, she became the darling of really the environmental movement. In local talk, expert linked storms to global warming. We're going up against a natural cycling as being exacerbated by global warming, Curie said. We're only partway up the cycling. We're already 50% higher in numbers and intensity of storms than the peak of the last cycle. The key is global warming.

Now because of these statements, she was lauded and a part of the entire group that were really pushing this idea. But then eventually enough science started pouring through the door, saying, I think you should look at something else. Look at our data. Hurricane debate shatter civility of weather science. I think this is just a year later in 2006. Dr. Gray hasn't been shy about firing back at his critics after Judith Curry, a climatologist at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta co-wrote a paper linking global warming and hurricane intensity. He said Judy Curry just doesn't know what she's talking about. So unlike many of the scientists that we see these days,

instead of cooking the books or instead of working on a way to make it still work, she looked at all the science, all of the data, and slowly but surely started coming to different conclusions. And since then, this is what she looks like in our news. We're now in climatologist Judith Curry. Judith Curry. I now recognize Dr. Curry. President of Climate Forecast Applications Networks.

The author of a new book called Climate Uncertainty and Risk, Rethinking Our Response. I'm devoted four decades to conducting research related to extreme weather events in climate change. What passes for climate science is really very political. I mean, the policy card has been way out in front of the scientific course from the very beginning on this issue. Sure. are influencing the climate to some extent, but natural climate variability is far and away the dominant factor.

The sense that extreme weather events are now more frequent or intense because of man-made global warming is symptomatic of weather amnesia. Even the IPCC acknowledges that there's very little relationship between extreme weather and the warming trend. Between 2012 and 2018, the tornadoes

were way below average, and then all of a sudden we get one bad year and it's global warming. The oversimplistic story that we're being fed by UN officials and by activists and advocates is just misleading us into a bad direction. I started criticizing scientists for not making their data publicly available, for not being transparent about their method. They quickly started labeling as a denier and tried to discredit me. who speaks up in opposition to this established UN narrative gets ignored, marginalized, cancelled, insulted and so on. It happens every single year. Judy disagrees with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

She's an expert. She disagrees with the American scientific establishment. She's out on her own on this. She's not on her own. There are hundreds of hundreds to agree with it. Climate media has become big business. Ten years ago, there were only a handful of journalists on the climate beat. Now, each major media outlet has dozens of reporters covering climate.

This mad rush to tearing down nuclear gas and coal plants and replacing them with wind and solar has proven to be a fiasco. We're going to end up in a worse place at the end of the 21st century. Well, Judith Curry has written a book, Climate Uncertainty and Rist. rethinking our response. This is a fantastic book. I'm honored to be joined by Judith now. Thank you. Well, thank you. I'm delighted to be here with you today. It's really good to have you. I want to, you know, you sort of come full circle in some ways, but I want to just get something out of the way up front. Do you consider yourself an environmentalist? Well, I'm an old-style

environmentalist. You know, I care about clean air, clean water, clean soil and preserving habitats for wildlife. And I try to minimize my personal impact on the environment. Okay, but when it comes to these issues, like this global warming phenomenon that's being used to really create hysteria, this is where, you know, obviously you're finding yourself in a much different space. Well, I mean, two things.

I look at the science, this is a very common, complex problem, climate change. There's a great deal we don't understand. There's a great deal of uncertainty, so we need to be honest about that. And we also have to look at broader issues. I mean, there's three billion people on the planet who don't have access to grid electricity. We need to think about them too. So both the scientific and the social issues surrounding climate change are not at all straightforward

or simple. So take me back. moment where you know you look at some science and you come to this conclusion that hurricane the severity of hurricanes increasing I heard this a ton at that time and I mean I still hear it that is you know this the weather is getting worse because of climate what you know when you wrote that paper when people started pushing back what made you change your mind or what made you see it differently well what happened there well what we did was really novel for the

first time we pulled together a global hurricane data looking at all the hurricanes for the entire globe. And what we found was rather astonishing. The percent of category four and five hurricanes had increased very substantially. And so this got a lot of publicity. It was published two weeks after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. Obviously got a lot of publicity. And, you know, people, you know, the environmental.

movement lauded us, but some other people came after us big time. These were climate global warming skeptics. There was some scientists from the National Hurricane Center. And we listened to what everybody had to say, and one of the key points was that in a lot of the ocean regions, the data just wasn't any good in the 70s and early 80s. So we had some spurious trends. You know, we need to go back and take a look and throw out the bad data. And we need to do a more careful interpretation of natural climate variability, which is what

we did. I mean, some of the criticisms were stupid, but those were the two that, you know, had some weight. And we went back and took another look and revisited all this. And the hurricane wars after flaring up, you know, were over in nine months, you know, because people on both sides of the debate decided to work together and figure it out. So then, you know, so you realize there's a shift. That's a normal processor it used to be in science, right? Exactly.

You know, disagreement and debate is what moves the scientific frontier forward. I mean, anything that you find has to be put up for challenges. And we got lots of challenges and, you know, a few of them stuck and we revised the way we looked at the problem. Now, how did that affect your career? Like once you came out and said, I'm changing my mind on this? That was fine. It was okay. Okay?

No, it was okay. I actually backed off. I was exhausted from the media attention, and I backed off from the public debate and went back to, you know, mostly doing my work. I mean, people were generally okay with it. Okay, so there was a time where we had a conversation. So now why when I watch the news, are you being called a climate denier? Okay, well, this goes to November of 2009, the so-called Climate Gate emails. Okay. I mean, this was the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia, a number of IPCC authors, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

And this revealed all sorts of... So this is the IPCCC. So what year are we talking about? 2009, you said. 2009. So in 2009, this intergovernment agency comes together to, what, just look at climate change. Take me through it. What was the plan?

Okay. This is the UN Climate Assessment Report. They started in 2001. Okay. Okay, and the fourth assessment report was published in 2007. Okay, and these emails talked reflected what a number of IPCC authors were doing behind the scenes. Okay, they were trying to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests. They were trying to rig the peer review process.

So let's talk about what the discovery was that was now being challenged by these emails. So tell me about the hockey stick, this idea of the hockey stick. this idea of the hockey stick graph. Okay, well, in the, in 2001, the third assessment report, the hockey stick graph sort of was heavily promoted by the IPCC. This is it. We're looking at it here, showing sort of the past thousand years, and then right there coming into 2000,

you see this massive spike. It goes up the red line, especially that lower one. You can see it. It just seems to go up through the roof. And this was extremely surprising because everybody who studied this issues knew that there was a medieval warm period about a thousand years ago and a little ice age about 500 years ago and all of this was flattened out. So that wasn't in there, which sent a few red flags. But how important was this graph? How much did it affect the science of the world? Okay, well, when the chairman of the IPCC did the press release for this report,

he was standing there with the hockey stick icon right behind him. This was Sir John Houghton of the UK. I mean, this was featured. I mean, there it is. And this was prematurely canonized by the IPCC. It was a very preliminary piece of research with, it turned out a lot of sort of shoddy assumptions that went into it. But it was all of a sudden canonized,

and it became an icon for the entire global warming. movement. So from that moment on, this, this, you know, spike going, oh my God, we have a heating event like we've never seen in history. So now we, this is the Greta Thornburg. This is, we're all going to die. The earth is heating at rates we've never thought about. And, but then 2009, suddenly the emails inside start popping up. I have a couple of them. I'll read them right here. Let's just look at these emails. Oh, they're so much fun. All right. This is a This is reported by the Guardian, parliamentary climate emails inquire as it happened. This is one, Dear Ray, Mike, and Malcolm.

I've just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temps in each series for the last 20 years from 1981 onwards and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land in marine vitals while the other two got April through September for NH land. So just to understand, when we look at that graph that then turns out in a hockey stick, apparently the graph is all using one kind of data, but then he inserts a different data group in the end? Well, it's even worse than that because the first data set, the paleo-climate data set, the tree ring from 1960 to 1980, it didn't show any increase in temperature. at all, it actually showed a decrease in temperature.

So they just cut off that data and spliced on the instrumental record. And so for people to understand this, when we're looking at this data that was used, they're using tree ring data, however you read that data over years, and can go back the life of these trees and see these cooling and warming trends. But suddenly that data gives us what our past is, but when it stops showing what we want to, to show, they cut it off and then they start inserting because now it's the 1980s. We have temperature gauges. Let's add the current temperature gauge stuff onto the end of a tree model and suddenly everything

changes. That's exactly what was done and that's something that we would now label as image fraud. You can't do that sort of thing in science. I mean, you know, for the layperson, it's like, well, okay, but that's really fraud. It's very misleading. And it's something, you can't do that. And if they hadn't done that, what would we have actually seen in the graph? He's seen a lot of wiggles that sort of went nowhere.

Okay. So they created alarm. There's another email that came from inside of this. Let's take a look at this. I know there is pressure to present a nice, tidy story as regards apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data, But in reality, the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date.

And those that do, at least a significant number of tree proxies, some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it is wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter. So this is inside the IPCC. You've got someone saying, I don't think we should do this. Exactly. And if we're going to do it, we better tell people we're doing it, right? That we are manipulating this data.

we're supposed to be an international body of scientists coming together. Isn't transparency the most important part of science? Absolutely. Very essential. And so, but obviously this guy is getting overruled that wrote this email, and so they decide to just roll with it. And from that moment, that, I mean, to me, you know, you say it's misleading. It seems like fraud.

You're not telling people that you've manipulated a study. and at the heart of this really, at the heart of this to understand it is, really the tree data is not very good data. Is that what we can say? Yeah, tree rings make a lousy thermometer. Okay. So looking back and we could say it might have been doing this and we just can't see it, it's doing this and didn't do much even when it was getting warm.

We know it's getting warm, but we don't know if it's the first time, the trees aren't seeing it. What we know is if we're going to use the trees in the past and use the trees now, the trees aren't seeing the, heat that we're seeing right now. And so we really shouldn't be using this as our understanding of the past temperature issues. Is that? Yeah, pretty much, yeah. Okay. So now, but once this information comes out in 2009, you would think there's a whole Miyacopa moment. Well, it wasn't. It was just a big moment of circling the wagons and trying to protect the people who wrote the

the emails, the people, you know, trying to protect the IPCC. I spoke up. Okay. Okay. I was concerned about three things. I was concerned about the integrity of science. I was concerned about what does this mean for the IPCC. But mostly I was concerned about the students.

You know, what kind of an example does this present for them? You know, it was terrible. So I wrote... I mean, you're supposed to be the best of the best. I know. I mean, if you're going through school and you're going to be a climate scientist, you're imagining this IPCCC. This is the best of the best. Yeah, so I wrote three essays, okay, and the three points I had,

we need to make our data publicly available. We need to be completely transparent about our methods. Second point was we need to be honest about the uncertainties, about what we don't know, and we shouldn't be overconfident in our conclusions. And the third point was that we need to be respectful of people who disagree with, you know, and pay attention to them, not just try to attack them and marginalize them. Sounds like motherhood and apple pie. Yeah.

Well, the New York Times picked up one of my essays, so there are people out there who were interested in it. But, you know, the important people, the grand poobas of the climate movement, if you will, were horrified at what I'd done. And here I was single-handedly working to tear down this consensus that they'd manufactured for decades surrounding this whole thing. And so they didn't sort of know what to do with me. They were trying to get journalists to ignore me and people to ignore me. And then Michael Mann, the author of the hockey stick paper, came up with the idea, well,

just called Judith Curry a denier. Okay, throw her in the pile with all the scientific cranks and the oil companies, and then we can ignore her. And this took off like wildfire. You know, everybody just started calling me a climate denier. Even the scientists themselves. This isn't just journalists? Not the scientists. No.

No. Very few actual scientists would call me a denier. But in the media and social media, mainstream media, even like in the Washington Post or something, if they would mention me, they would say, well-known climate denier Judith Curry. I mean, it was just part of the vernacular. You know, I became labeled as a climate denier. To this day, I have no idea exactly what it is

I'm supposed to be denying. Right, you're just pointing out that we should be transparent with our science. Exactly. I mean, do you imagine that part of that is to sort of threaten anybody else that would consider speaking out and being transparent? Oh, yeah.

I mean, people get scientists now, get called a denier more for social reasons, rather than for their position on the science. You can get called a denier if you prefer nuclear power over wind and solar. Right. Or if you think there are more important problems to be spending your money on than climate change, things like that. Right. Those will get you a scientist labeled a denier as well.

Now, let's look at the sort of the conversation we're in. As you said at the top, you know, that you want clean air, water, food. I've said the same thing to my audience. I'm that version of environmentalist, though. I'm letting go. The word freaks me out because it implies all of these other things, bad science, manipulation, government controls that I don't like at all. But as you said, you're doing everything you can to try and make the earth a cleaner place.

So let's talk about net zero for a second. You know, people that drive electric cars. I have people, my family. My brother is totally dedicated. I mean, has a tiny house, drives an electric car. I mean, I really honor and respect that. I mean, he lives his truth. But is net zero possible?

Maybe, but not in the near term. I mean, maybe in the 22nd century, I would expect our carbon footprint to be a lot lower. But trying to force it by knee-capping fossil fuel companies isn't going to get us anywhere. need to go. So I mean it's a political it's the deadlines. The concept of net zero, I mean, it's not impossible. Yeah, but the issue is net zero by 2030 or 2050. It's the urgency that's put onto it that makes no sense. And you know, it's not technologically, economically,

or politically viable. I mean, we're, you know, spending so much of our resources and mental energy and whatever on something that's just impossible. It's so wide. And really ultimately can be very harmful. And we're ignoring things that we can actually fix,

okay, and take care of. What would those be? Well, okay, the first thing you need to do is we have three separate problems that have been all convoluted and climate change. Okay. First one's extreme weather, and then we have energy, and then we have climate.

These are three separate problems. Let's reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather. We've always had extreme weather events. We're having them now and we will in the future. Heat waves, hurricanes, floods, droughts, let's figure out how to reduce our vulnerability. Okay. Okay. Everyone's going to benefit now.

We don't have to wait for the 22nd century to feel those benefits. Right, we shouldn't be playing. We submit all of our energy on the ocean's going to rise and cause all of these problems. Which I mean, how fast is the ocean? By the way, kind of is that? How fast is it rising? Oh, like about maybe eight inches a century, something like that.

Really? It's really slow. Yeah. Okay. And then on the other side is energy. We need to decouple energy from the climate problem. We need abundant, reliable, secure, inexpensive, and clean if we can manage. clean if we can manage it.

I mean, with all the new things coming on, you know, with artificial intelligence, block change, all of these things, quantum this, we need more and more electricity and wind and solar are not going to cut it. I mean, and to the extent that we're wasting resources on that, we're just basically applying a tourniquet to ourselves in terms of restricting economic development. All the while we have three billion people on the planet, mostly in Africa, who don't have access to grid electricity. I mean, this should be a top priority for the world.

So, and then you have climate change, which is relatively benign. We have the slow creep of climate change. Yes, sea level rises increasing a little bit, and yes, the glaciers are melting a little bit, but this is happening slowly, and we can easily adapt to it. And once you separate those three problems, you know, then you can start to tackle each one of them in a sensible way. But if you lump all of that and think we're going to prevent bad weather by using wind and solar power instead of fossil fuels, I mean, that's rather a joke. There's a clip that's been going around. We've played it a couple times of

John Kerry in a hearing, and he's confronted by Representative Massey. I want to just take a look at this because I have a question for you. Watch this. We now know that definitively at no point during the least the past 800,000 years has atmospheric CO2 been as high as it is today. When I was in the

South Pole, when I was, I wasn't on the South Pole, when I was in McBirdo, we couldn't get to the South Pole because of the weather, but I was given a vial of air which said on it cleanest air in the world, it was 401.6 parts per million. That is 50 parts

per million already over what scientists say. The reason you chose 800,000 years ago is because for 200 million years before that it was greater than it is today. And I'm going to submit for the record. Yeah, but there weren't human beings. I mean, there was a different world, folks. We didn't have seven billion people. So how to get to 2,000 parts per million if we humans weren't here?

Because there were all kinds of geologic events happening on Earth which spewed up. Did geology stop when we got on the planet? Mr. Chairman, this is just not a serious conversation. Your testimony is not serious. I mind this to be, and by the way, as an environmentalist, I've been a big fan of John Carey's, of Al Gore's, I mean, years ago, but this argument to me seems like a pretty good one. Is it a decent argument? Because, I mean, is it true what Massey's saying?

Which is, for 200 million years or whatever, the Earth was much hotter, We were was teeming with foliage. I mean, we just, when we think back of our images of dinosaurs, it's like, it's like Eden, utopia, it's green, it's lush, everything can live. And now we're being told that if the CO2 levels go up, we're all going to die. He makes the point. And Kerry says, but there were no human beings then, which is like, right, then what drove the CO2 up then?

I mean, to me, this is one of the best arguments there is. Is there anything wrong with this argument that we're not thinking about? Well, yeah, not really. I mean, through most of Earth's geologic histories, CO2 has been much higher, an order of magnitude higher even. Okay, so, I mean, there's nothing primof a sea wrong with high CO2 in the atmosphere. And CO2 isn't particularly a control knob on surface temperature. I mean, the Earth's surface temperature wasn't enormously hotter when temperatures were, when CO2 concentrations, worth 3,000 parts per million.

Wow. So, I mean, it's just that there's not, it's not, the climate system is a lot more complex than that. It's not just about CO2, but this whole climate change problem has been framed very narrowly around CO2, ignoring natural climate variability, which is, to my mind, the main driver.

In our clip in the beginning, John Oliver, does this visual with one climate scientist, deny her, let's say, would have been you, and 99 other scientists saying she's crazy. And we hear this over and over again. 99% of all climate scientists believe that human beings are causing global warming. Is that true? Okay. Human beings are emitting CO2, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas that acts to warm the planet.

So all scientists agree that CO2 does have a warming effect. The question is how much of a warming effect and is that warming dominating over natural climate variability? There's no agreement on that. So when we hear they all agreed, was it a lighter question we're told? I mean, was the question basically, do you think that human beings CO2, which is coming out of them, is contributing? It's worse than that. That 97% and 99% is a bunch of climate activists who searched abstracts of scientific papers and categorizes. and categorize them as believing in human-caused warming or not believing.

And it was a fairly ludicrous exercise. For example, they classified a paper about cook stoves in India as supporting global warming. Right. You know, rather than, you know, so it was a complete joke, that study, but it went viral. President Obama tweeted that paper, and it went viral about 97%.

So yeah, we're contributing to warming. But the big question is how much? And the second big question is what's going to happen for the remainder of the 21st century? We really don't know. We don't know how natural climate variability is going to play out. There's a great deal of uncertainty. And you left, did you leave the university system? I did.

I retired prematurely in 2017. There's a lot of political, correctness group think cancel culture taking off in the universities and it's very unpleasant for a scientist who thinks independently about a politically charged issue so I just you know I saw I could have played the game you know I could have stayed there sucked up my big salary but I said no that's not who I am so I just resign my position and went into the private sector when we look at how the is just sort of steam rolling along and all these scientists get on every new show oh it's proven

my study shows this is it my understanding you know because I've looked at other I mean watched the show coming up to here I'm not going to get into that but if you only fund one side of the science then you kind of drive the popularity of the the bias right I mean oh absolutely are the universities equally funding scientists like yourself to say go ahead let's Let's red team this, right? You go out and knock down, you know, John's paper or Sally's paper and see if you can show us a different angle. That's what science should be doing. But instead, it silences its critics.

It silences those that have science that shows you something else. And it funds and invests. And it's a cycle, right? More and more funding comes into that school. They get more and more grants from government agencies. The government wants to push this. And so you just get this. I mean, it's literally a thought bubble that's going on.

here in the world? Pretty much. That's how it works. That's a major theme on my book, Climate Uncertainty and Risk, you know, how we got here. And, you know, it's just a worldview that was put into play by the UN back in the 1990s that has been embraced by, you know, national governments, and the whole problem's been framed very narrowly in terms of Human cause warming fossil fuels are bad and it's dangerous so we need to stop burning fossil fuels and the policies and the science are all You know framed in this way so what we have is policy driven science not science driven policy That's what we've got how dangerous is that not a good thing at all It perverts the scientific process and it leads us to making bad policy decisions so it's

It's not a good thing at all. What would be your advice to student scientists coming up now through the education system? Are they getting a good education? Are they being taught to be objective? Are they being like what I imagine I would have been taught as a journalist, you know, that we were supposed to be objective? Now I watch the news and it's completely subjective, has a strong bias, literally propagandizes for whatever side it's, you know, represents.

Is that true for science too? Well, back when I was in schools, you know, around the 1980s, the core disciplines were geology, oceanography, and atmospheric science, and students needed to get a firm backing in those fields. Now they don't need that. There's all these climate studies kind of programs where they learn more about policy, politics. They can recite certain talking points from the IPCC, but they don't have any real understanding. And so these are the people that are going off to work for the NGOs and to be journalists and to be congressional staffers and so forth and so on.

And they don't have any meaningful understanding of climate dynamics. What they understand is the how to play the political game. Wow, it's really scary. I keep covering them in this show. It's just, you know, it's the death of science. We are staring in the face, which is very, very scary. And what the problem is, it'd be fine if science, I guess, just disappeared then it went away. But it is such a controlling, powerful industry now.

And the fact that it's corrupted the way it is makes it so incredibly dangerous because it's now a tool and a weapon being used against. Well, yeah, I mean, any politically charged issue in sciences has the same problem. I mean, it's not just climate change. You see it in the health and biological science and gender studies and, you know, GMOs, all sorts of. of issues where there's a political component, you know, is very, very uncomfortable for scientists who are thinking independently and not hewing to the party line, if you will. Yeah, I mean, we're bullying now scientists that have any sort of dissenting view. Oh, yeah.

It's really, and then how you're going to have it then? You're just making it impossible. So, you know, a lot of people, a lot of good scientists who keep their heads down and do their work and, you know, publishes. their paper and put an obscure title on it, you know, so nobody realizes that it's sort of a heretical piece of work. And they just carry on doing their work. And if you dig, you can find a lot of good science out there that challenges the existing

narrative. It's just not going to say a headline. I've proved that global warming's baloney. It'll just say something really in. We see that in the space. I'm in medical science. You can tell once you read the body of this, they're telling you what they're discovering, but they have to be so careful about how they do it.

To follow the work that you're doing, what's a good website? Where can we sort of track your work? Okay, well, I have a blog called Climate, etc. You can find it at judithcurry.com. Okay. I'm on Twitter at Curry, JA. Okay.

My company is Climate Forecast Applications Network. And my new book is Climate Uncertainty and Risk. Fantastic. Judith, I'm glad you're out there. I hope you continue to be a voice. This is the book. Once again, anywhere you want to find a book, can find a book, climate uncertainty and risk. It's a great book. I highly recommend you read this. It helps with all the conversations. We've got to educate ourselves. But more importantly, check out her substack. Check out the work that she's doing. You know, follow her Twitter because we've got to start supporting these voices that are literally these lone voices out there. in the wilderness.

If we don't wanna find ourselves in the wilderness too, then we've got to support great people. Thank you for being a scientist. Thank you for being able to accept, you know, that a hypothesis was maybe incorrect. It's something that is just becoming so rare these days that it's nice to meet someone that's able to say, yeah, I saw it one way and I see it another.

And, you know, in the last thought that you would have, What can we as citizens do as we move forward? Well, first, live your best life. I'm so concerned about all the kids who are being so stressed out about this. The messaging that the young people get is much worse than what we see, and they're upset.

They think they have no future. We need to get past us and stop worrying about it. Warming isn't dangerous. There's no particular reason to think that it's dangerous. So we need to get out there and do our best life. And forget the top-down global solutions. Let's do bottom-up solutions. Work in your community to secure your common interests,

to make your environment safe and secure and reduce your vulnerability to extreme weather. And I think the real solutions are going to come from the bottom-up. great judith thank you for your work great message you know as as we you know try to figure out there's people like myself the high wire how do we get this information out how do we make it understandable well there's somebody that's taking it to a whole other level what if we could just absolutely entertain you make you laugh make you cry maybe that's a way to get through and there's nothing that's about to do that better than plantemic the musical take a look at

this It's the moment roots woven under and so strong. No storm will ever break us down. The music hole, we've all been waiting for it, and the premiere of the entire musical is right around the corner. Mickey Willis. Great to be back. It's great to see you.

Thanks to having you, brother. First of all, where's this going? Where are you premiering this film? This is premiering on March 9th in Las Vegas at the re-platform Vegas event. And for tickets and information right there you see on the screen, go to planemic.com. Plandemic.com. Yes, sir. And I've been watching you, obviously, I got to be a little part of that, which was, you know, so much fun. Why a musical? Great question, and I'm glad I get the

opportunity to share this, because there's some controversy online of people who don't quite understand how important it is in this moment right now that we reclaim our gifts. Our art, our comedy has been hijacked, our music, our dance, our poetry, our literature. Everything has been hijacked with these divisive, demoralizing messages. And what I've witnessed through all the research and really digging into this, you know, we go back and forth all the time about our latest, what we're trying to discover with, what's at the foundation of all of these agendas, what's going on here. And what I've come to realize is that there's a chipping away at our will to live.

Most people know my story that I had a brother that was killed by AZT, and a month later, my mom, who was a cancer survivor, died of her cancer, that she kept at bay for 20 years. But the pain of losing her first son and the guilt of knowing that she was one of the ones who made the decision to keep him on that deadly protocol, as we've all heard in life, when one old person dies, it's not uncommon that when they've been together for 50, 60 years, that, soon after the mate goes, the other one follows. And so that brought to me this interesting question of what is this thing we call our will to live? Like do we really have the power to choose to be here or not? And as I look at these agendas from a big picture perspective, I start to see that they're chipping away at our will to live and kind of like video game characters where you have a little bar of life force there. It's like when that thing gets all the way down the game is over. And when

Our, you know, love has always brought us, love is the most fierce power that we have. That's what has brought men and warriors to the battle lines, to defend their nation, their family, their wives, their children, their freedoms. And if we don't love our nation, if we don't love each other, if we don't love ourselves, if we don't love and appreciate our life, what is there to fight for? And that's where they want us. So I decided to make this musical, and you know you were there when the moment happened. I think it was four years ago at your house.

That right. I thought it was three, but someone the other day said, that was four years ago. So the whole world was on lockdown with Thanksgiving at your house, and we had probably too much wine. And we were... Not a discipline came out of it. That's right.

Perfect amount of wine. And my incredibly talented musical director, Deepak, was there with his guitar, and we started singing these songs, kind of making light of the situation, because we all needed to laugh, and we all needed to experience joy again. And it was during that moment at your house that someone said, oh, what a great musical this would make. And I said, we're doing it. And so here we are

all these years later. And it's here. But that's really the reason, Del, is because, and the other reason is this, why a musical? Music is one of the most powerful, transformative modalities that the human body will ever experience. And it is also one of the most destructive if it's used against us. The reason is because it's vibration, it's sound, and we are electromagnetic vibrating beings on a planet that resonates. The vibrational resonant of the planet is called a Schumann residence, and that it vibrates at 7.83 hertz. And they have systemically rewired our music such that it's chaotic and creates dissonance

instead of harmonious, unifying vibrations that bring us into connection with the planet that we live on. And so when you understand it down to the root of the vibration of the frequency of the music has been altered, and then when you look at the messages, and when you understand that what else in our lives, there are songs that I loved when I was 12 years old that I still sing today. What other, you know, lyrical messages do we repeat on loop for 30, 40, 50 years in our lives? This becomes embedded in our psyche to such a deep degree that it's time to reclaim our music. and the messaging of our arts and our gifts and the creative spirit. And in my opinion, to launch the next Renaissance,

which is one of the things that pulled the people to the dark ages when they were all suffering from the Black Plague and all, very similar to what we're going through right now. Yeah, it's always the arts. What was it like making this? I mean, I showed up for, you know, a day there. I got a little cameo in there,

but, I mean, it was a full film set. I mean, I'm used to documentaries. You and I, like, I've showed up, you think, you know, There's one thing when it's like a camera or two, it's another thing when it's like, I mean, you had lights everywhere. You had a whole grocery store. Like it was lit up. It was cathartic for me because I had been so mired in this world of just, you know, researching all the dark and doom and gloom. And so it was such a nice reset for me as a filmmaker, as a storyteller, to be on the set and have all those toys.

and to be really focused on just the solution and the bright side, the beautiful side of humanity. It was such a nice reset that allowed me then to go back in and to do the work that I did with The Great Awakening so that I could really bring all of me back to that project. And it was just great fun. I had the most incredible crew, and we just laughed all day long.

I think your cameo is the funniest in the piece. A lot of people don't know. It's only a 20-minute movie, but it's epic in proportion. And Dell is hilarious. I think we got some behind the scenes. Yeah, good. Let's take it look at this.

Action. He's sanitizing his gloves. He was like, and you brought a lot of that. I know you have a background in theater and all that. And it really showed because it was just what you brought to that. And what everyone, we have J.P. Sears is in the film. We have Judy Michaelvitz.

We have Dr. Robert Malone. Malone. And Jimmy Levy. and high-res, just an incredible variety show of talent. Super cool. Let me ask you, I mean, I know we're artists. I love that in this case, you're bringing to love. It's such an important thing.

When I think about what Judith said about the kids. I mean, I have, you know, relatives are just getting out of college. They're being raised to just be terrified that we're all going to die. Yeah. I mean, it's amazing. And you watch this sort of the Greta Thornbert like this, like people destroy. art and you know we've got to stop this or we're all going to die the planet needs us i mean it's just a lot of fear and there's a lot of fear on the covid pandemic that we came through right

and you and i both know that as artists you know especially like the easiest thing to trigger is that fear that's right right it's also i mean i this is what i want to ask you is i grapple with it fear is so effective at like at least like you know where there is no spark like getting someone to It's like that electrode shot like, how low do you see this is going on? Can love alone overcome, you know, the weapon of fear?

Or is there some balance? I mean, plandemics, some of your pandemics are really frightened. You know, Judy Mikovits, frightening, what she lays out there. As an artist, how are you, you know, because you're doing both. Right.

What is the power of love compared to the power of fear? Well, the power of love is so much more powerful than fear that it is often swept aside and avoided. And that's why our media channels are just filled with doom and gloom. Because if we were to be resonating in the frequency of love, there's nothing that can penetrate us. It's literally, I was telling someone the other day who's dealing with a lot of media problems. I said, you need to become a stealth fighter. The stealth fighter is off the radar of those that are seeking to take it down. And the only way that we can truly do that, what I mean by that, literally, is we have to take responsibility.

We don't understand that we are receivers and broadcasters, just like the radio in our car. We receive and we broadcast. So what is it that we're receiving most of? And what is it that we're broadcasting? Because whatever we're putting out in the world becomes the entrainment of energy, of vibration, And so there's a lot of people that think they're fighting the good fight, but they're so negative. Yeah. And all they're admitting in the world is negativity to such a degree that they don't understand that they're literally undercutting their own work.

And so for me, it's, I can't do the work I do if I don't balance it out with, with, you know, coaching Little League and being with my kids and playing and being silly and, and, and celebrating life. because, you know, it's these things that we celebrate, these little joys in life. You know, if we look at a list right now of every, if everyone makes a list of the top things that we would live and die for, I guarantee you every single one of those things are under attack. And that is, that is the agenda. Because if we can take away family, what else would we fight more as men? Would we fight tooth and now for more than our children and our wives? And if you can break that down, if you can disrupt the the intrinsic primal desire and attraction between men and women,

then we no longer have that to strive for. If you can just think about all the little joys. Like I don't know about you, and I know a lot of people experience this, but it's hard for me now to even watch, to flip through Netflix and watch a movie, because a lot of my favorite actors, musicians, and people have all supported this tyranny. And so I start to watch it and I just can't support this guy anymore. It sucks. I loved him three years ago.

But it's so hard to support someone who was saying things like Arnold Schwarzenegger said, you know, like F.R. Freedom. Yeah. You know, it's really hard for me to go back and pay to watch a movie or something that he's in knowing. And so, but I also realize that, well, that's what they want. They want us to be in a position where we've just let go of all these little joys to such a degree that we're more. susceptible to listening to their narrative. And so it's really, this is the moment for us to reclaim the brilliance and resilience of the human organism and our individual power as human beings,

to understand that if you have any grasp whatsoever of what the hero's journey truly is, and you understand the plight of the hero's journey that was really mapped out by the man named Joseph Campbell, what the hero always learned through their journey as they're going off looking for the hero to solve this major riddle or life catastrophe, they learn that they are the one, that the force is within. And that's what I hope that people wake up to more than anything right now is there's no politician that's going to come and suddenly fix everything. Science isn't suddenly going to course correct. There's a parallel world that's being developed. And that's why I said yes to the re-platform Vegas event, because it is all about

parallel economies. A very wise man named Buckminster Fuller once said that we'll never defeat the wicked systems by trying to defeat the wicked systems, but only by inventing a new system that renders the old system obsolete. And so this event that we're involved in May 9th in Las Vegas, it actually begins with a COVID litigation conference, with all the top doctors and lawyers coming together to bring justice to the people for this crime against humanity. And then it finishes with the celebration of Plandemic the Musical and a bunch of great speakers that are all solution-based. What are we going to do about our food supply, our finances, our money, our societies, the debanking issues, and all the stuff that they're doing because

they've made us dependent upon their system. Great. Go ahead and play your dark game, and we're going to come over here and invent a new system in a new game that's going to be so much more attractive to anyone who has any part of their humanity left, that they're going to abandon that, and that's how we win. Nikki is a really powerful words. Very important. I've just, been told that my microphone's not working so let me go and close the show talking to your microphone sounds good um what moment let's go right here i'm going to close this show out right here uh i want to say to all of you that you know last night i was i was hanging you know lee and i were in bed my wife and you know she was talking about a lot of things she was concerned about oh there sorry right there and

and i just said you know honey we can't take this all that seriously we have a beautiful family we have beautiful kids. We're having a great life experience and we get to do things that make a difference. We're, you know, we're bringing truth. But we've got to remember to laugh. We've got to keep laughing. And I just want to remind you all that that we talk about a lot of difficult issues here. Look at what we just saw today. You're watching Sky News in Australia, a, you know, a lead reporter calling out the lies by Richie Sunnick. You see, and part of, even though they've like done this, you know, tried to jerry-rig the excess mortality in England. Ultimately, this is never had to do this before. Yeah. Ultimately, the excess mortality, there's a huge pushback across the country. People are calling it out.

They're not stupid. They see that you're cooking the books. And so we have put the cameras on these people. We have got them in our sights. We're turning the lights on them and the darkness is being brought to light. We're winning every single day. We're winning because of beautiful people like this that are reminding us how to love, you know, and reminding us that we do make a difference. You make a difference. With every heart and mind you change, everyone you make laugh, you make the world a better place. And when we are laughing more and more, we realize this is ours again.

This is our time. This is our nation. This is our world. We don't need to live in fear. We can clean up the water without how to be terrified about the ocean being eight. inches deeper a hundred years from now. There's better ways to do everything. Let's commit to that. Let's commit to making the world a better place. Let's try to not pollute if we don't have to. Let's do everything that we can to not have too much garbage floating in our oceans and our rivers.

We can do that together. Let's get the governments out of this and their hysteria. Let's do it with love for our children and the generations to come. I'm going to keep talking about that. I'll see you next week on the Highwire. Thank you.